THE GOOD
U.S. Constitution
Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
From SCOTUS website:
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
From SCOTUS Code of Conduct
CANON 1: A JUSTICE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY. A Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States should maintain and observe high standards of conduct in order to preserve the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary.
B. DISQUALIFICATION. (1) A Justice is presumed impartial and has an obligation to sit unless disqualified. (2) A Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties. Such instances include, but are not limited to, those in which:
The Justice or the Justice’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such person, is known by the Justice: (i) to be a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party; (ii) to be acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; (iii) to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or (iv) likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
THE BAD
From Newsweek Magazine:
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's wife, Martha-Ann Alito, is in the spotlight after the judge said his wife is responsible for displaying an upside-down American flag outside the couple's home following the 2020 presidential election.
An upside-down flag—used at the time by some Donald Trump supporters to contest the election results that showed Joe Biden was the winner—was seen in photographs flying on Alito's lawn in Alexandria, Virginia, on January 17, 2021, The New York Times reported Thursday.
The report raised questions about Alito's ability to rule on Trump-related cases impartially—such as the soon-expected decision on whether Trump is protected by presidential immunity from charges in his federal election subversion case. Some have even suggested that Alito recuse himself from Trump-related cases because of the flag incident.
The controversy follows calls for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' recusal from Trump cases after his wife, Ginni Thomas, said she attended Trump's Washington rally that preceded the January 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.
THE UGLY
From Adam Liptak reporting for the NYT
The Supreme Court on July 1, 2024 ruled that former President Donald J. Trump is entitled to substantial immunity from prosecution on charges of trying to overturn the last election, a blockbuster decision in the heat of the 2024 campaign that vastly expanded presidential power.
The vote was 6 to 3, dividing along partisan lines. Its immediate practical effect will be to further complicate the case against Mr. Trump, with the chances that it will go before a jury ahead of the election now vanishingly remote and the charges against him, at a minimum, narrowed.
The decision amounted to a powerful statement by the court’s conservative majority that presidents should be insulated from the potential that actions they take in carrying out their official duties could later be used by political enemies to charge them with crimes.
Broad immunity for official conduct is needed, the chief justice wrote, to protect “an energetic, independent executive.”
“The president therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy or party.”
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the decision was gravely misguided. In a rare move and sign of deep disagreement, she summarized her dissent from the bench, making off-the-cuff remarks that underscored her frustration.
“Today’s decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency,” she wrote. “It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law.”
In her own dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that “the court has now declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can (under circumstances yet to be fully determined) become a law unto himself.”
Mr. Trump embraced the outcome on social media, celebrating the ruling. “Big win for our constitution and democracy,” he wrote in all-capital letters. “Proud to be an American!”
In all, the majority opinion was a broad defense of executive power and a detailed recipe for delay.
It was joined by the other Republican appointees: Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and, in part, Amy Coney Barrett.
In dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote that “the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark.”
“The court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding,” she wrote, adding: “The president of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution.”
She gave examples: “Orders the Navy’s SEAL team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold on to power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”
In her written dissent, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Jackson and Elena Kagan, said: “The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.”
Justice Sotomayor ended her opinion in unusual fashion. “With fear for our democracy,” she wrote, “I dissent.”
Chief Justice Roberts said the dissents were overwrought.
“They strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate,” he wrote, “to what the court actually does today — conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the president and his attorney general, and then remand to the lower courts to determine ‘in the first instance’ whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity.”
In conclusion, this ruling on July 1, 2024, exempts the President of the United States from certain crimes to which all other citizens of the US are held, and dispels the promise of equal justice under law. Had Justice Thomas and Justice Alito followed their own Code of Conduct and recused themselves, the vote would have been a narrow 4 to 3. Behold, the kingdom is at hand.
CPW
So depressing!!